Riley BlackSenior Security Analyst at a wellness & fitness company
VinothKumar5Senior Technical Architect at Hexaware Technologies Limited
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process."
"Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence."
"The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries."
"Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution."
"The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up."
"There are quite a few features that are very reliable, like the newly launched Veracode Pipelines Scan, which is pretty awesome. It supports the synchronous pipeline pretty well. We been using it out of the Jira plugin, and that is fantastic."
"One of the features they have is Software Composition Analysis. When organizations use third-party, open source libraries with their application development, because they're open source they quite often have a lot of bugs. There are always patches coming out for those open source applications. You really have to stay on your toes and keep up with any third-party libraries that might be integrated into your application. Veracode's Software Composition Analysis scans those libraries and we find that very valuable."
"Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely. By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."
"The Spider is the most useful feature. It helps to analyze the entire web application, and it finds all the passes and offers an automated identification of security issues."
"BurpSuite helps us to identify and fix silly mistakes that are sometimes introduced by our developers in their coding."
"Once I capture the proxy, I'm able to transfer across. All the requested information is there. I can send across the request to what we call a repeater, where I get to ready the payload that I send to the application. Put in malicious content and then see if it's responding to it."
"The suite testing models are very good. It's very secure."
"The way they do the research and they keep their profile up to date is great. They identify vulnerabilities and update them immediately."
"The most valuable feature is the application security. It also has a reasonable price."
"The most valuable features are Burp Intruder and Burp Scanner."
"You can scan any number of applications and it updates its database."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk"
"I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan."
"One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive."
"The triage indicator was kind of hard to find. It's a very small arrow and I had no idea it was there."
"Sometimes, I get feedback from a developer saying, "They are scanning a Python code, but getting feedback around Java code." While the remediation and guidelines are there, improvement is still required, e.g., you won't get the exact guidelines, but you can get some sort of a high-level insights."
"If Veracode was more diversified, as far as the number of platforms and the number of applications it could do in our favor, we would be using it even more. But there are a number of platforms it doesn't support. For example, I know they support C+, .NET, and Java, but there are certain platforms they don't support and that was disappointing."
"We tried to create an automatic scanning process for Veracode and integrate it into our billing process, but it was easier to adopt it to repositories based on GIT. Until now, our source control repository was Azure DevOps Server (Microsoft TFS) to managing our resources. This was not something that they supported. It took us some sessions together before we successfully implemented it."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"Right now, they are missing the static application security part, especially web application security."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."
"The number of false positives need to be reduced on the solution."
"The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors."
"The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger that today many people see as an issue in their testing. There might be a feature which might be desired."
"The solution doesn't offer very good scalability."
"The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download them, but they're not so informative."
"The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration."
"There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap."
"If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, it slows down the tool."
"For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization."
"I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good."
"Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing."
"If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount."
"Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive."
"We use this product per project rather than per developer... Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive."
"The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market."
"It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"The yearly cost is about $300."
"There is no setup cost and the cost of licensing is affordable."
"Licensing costs are about $450/year for one use. For larger organizations, they're able to test against multiple applications while simultaneously others might have multiple versions of applications which needs to be tested which is why we have the enterprise edition."
"There are different licenses available that include a free version."
"At $400 or $500 per license paid annually, it is a very cheap tool."
"PortSwigger is reasonably-priced. It's fair."
"It has a yearly license. I am satisfied with its price."
"We are using the community version, which is free."
Veracode covers all your Application Security needs in one solution through a combination of five analysis types; static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition analysis, interactive application security testing, and penetration testing. Unlike on-premise solutions that are hard to scale and focused on finding rather than fixing, Veracode comprises a unique combination of SaaS technology and on-demand expertise that enables DevSecOps through integration with your pipeline, and empowers developers to find and fix security defects.
Netsparker finds and reports web application vulnerabilities such as SQL Injection and Cross-site Scripting (XSS) on all types of web applications, regardless of the platform and technology they are built with. Netsparker's unique and dead accurate Proof-Based scanning technology does not just report vulnerabilities, it also produces a Proof of Concept to confirm they are not false positives, freeing you from having to double check the identified vulnerabilities.
Burp Suite Professional, by PortSwigger, is the world’s leading toolkit for web security testing. Over 52,000 users worldwide, across all industries and organization sizes, trust Burp Suite Professional to find more vulnerabilities, faster. With expertly-engineered manual and automated tooling, you're able to test smarter - not harder.
PortSwigger is the web security company that is enabling the world to secure the web. Over 50,000 security engineers rely on our software and expertise to secure their world.
Netsparker by Invicti is ranked 13th in Application Security with 6 reviews while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is ranked 5th in Application Security with 22 reviews. Netsparker by Invicti is rated 8.0, while PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Netsparker by Invicti writes "A customizable security testing solution with good tech support, but the price could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional writes "Great design, excellent features like Intruder, Repeater, Decoder with plenty of plug-ins from community forums". Netsparker by Invicti is most compared with OWASP Zap, Acunetix by Invicti, HCL AppScan, Fortify WebInspect and SonarQube, whereas PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional is most compared with OWASP Zap, Tenable.io Web Application Scanning, Fortify WebInspect, Acunetix by Invicti and Rapid7 InsightAppSec. See our Netsparker by Invicti vs. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional report.
We monitor all Application Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.